TexasCHLforum.com

I will still carry in a concealed manner regardless.

Some New Hampshire style activism would be nice.

Link

flintknapper wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:Well, since my most comfortable holsters are IWB, I'd just have to start wearing a belt and holster without pants.

You'd probably never get a second look in San Francisco, but in Texas....I'd probably stick with the pants.

Aren't The Village People trying to get a band back together?

If we were to magically have unrestricted open carry come next September, I doubt I would make many changes at all. I already have both IWB and OWB rigs, and wear OWB sometimes in the winter months; if I do, it's usually my Wilson Practical with a 1911, or a leather pancake holster. OWB definitely allows me to carry a larger handgun more comfortably.

When I'm at home, inside the house, I'm usually wearing a Comp-Tac OWB. (Hey, Gregg: another plug!) That's what I use for IDPA and I prefer Kydex overall because it's impervious to moisture, won't stretch out, and offers about the fastest presentation you can get without going to an IPSC race holster. But since it doesn't stretch, it doesn't lie as flat OWB as leather. That said, I haven't tried the new Minotaur Gladiator, the OWB version of the Minotaur; but that might be an option. I own two IWB Minotaurs and love 'em.

When I leave the house, it is and will continue to be concealed. My opinion is that concealed carry offers tactical advantages to non-LEO civilians in most congested, urban situations over open carry. We already know some disagree with me on that, which is fine. If you want to know my rationale, try to attend my clinic at the next Texas CHL Forum Day at PSC.

That said, would I never "unconceal"? Like mr surveyor said, I could see myself getting comfortable in a booth at a restaurant and taking off my sport coat...especially if I were sitting gun-side toward the wall. Or not worrying if I slip in and out of that jacket as I get into and exit the car. But I'd never OC like this guy, who strolled into a coffee shop with a massive .454 Casull on his hip and a bandolier of cartridges across his chest.

I think the big thing anyone switching to open carry will have to take into account is, as bigolbigun mentioned, getting a holster that offers a retention mechanism. I don't know whether simple Level I retention would be enough. Most police departments I'm familiar with require a Level II, and I'd think that would make the most sense for open carry. (If OC does eventually pass, it will be interesting to see if the law mandates holsters that meet a minimum retention level, and if so I wouldn't be surprised to see that baseline set at least at Level II, if not Level III.)

KD5NRH wrote:Well, since my most comfortable holsters are IWB, I'd just have to start wearing a belt and holster without pants.

I get the joke, but IWB is open carry too. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need a cover garment.

Oldgringo wrote:I would not open carry. I think Iratollah summed it up rather succinctly in another thread and, in her own words, Mrs. Oldgringo agreed with him. Codpiece indeed!

It's just as offense every time that comparison is made, because the anti-gunners say the same thing about concealed carry: you think you need a gun because you're insecure about your manhood, and having a gun makes up for certain anatomical deficiencies.

bigolbigun wrote:The debate is long on this topic,but for the sake of this thread lets say open carry passes in some form or another. Now what do you do?

I'd start a thread about Open Carry and hope and pray it goes 9 pages...

Skiprr wrote:
I think the big thing anyone switching to open carry will have to take into account is, as bigolbigun mentioned, getting a holster that offers a retention mechanism. I don't know whether simple Level I retention would be enough. Most police departments I'm familiar with require a Level II, and I'd think that would make the most sense for open carry. (If OC does eventually pass, it will be interesting to see if the law mandates holsters that meet a minimum retention level, and if so I wouldn't be surprised to see that baseline set at least at Level II, if not Level III.)

Wouldn't that negate the "faster and easier draw" argument point that the OC people are touting? Personally, if I were going to carry openly, it would be in a simple OWB rig like I already have. The few times I would actually OC would be at places like family property or perhaps family gatherings. I have no interest in carrying openly in my day-to-day activities. Were I to OC, i perhaps might invest in a BBQ gun and rig. There's no such thing as a Level III BBQ holster, and if I were forced to have some ridiculous Level II/III retention holster for OC, I would simply not bother. I'd sooner carry concealed always and have a quicker draw than have to tolerate silly buttons and snaps and angled draw and what-not.

I have no opposition to legal OC in and of itself. I do take issue with out-of-state folks pushing poorly-written and poorly-timed legislation with a pig-headed approach in a political system they do not understand.

Like most folks, I work for a living in an environment that does not include a handgun as standard equipment. With very few exceptions, most people wouldn't be able to carry openly in their everyday environments anyway. Most of us who carry at work do not tell our employers, because frankly - it's none of their business. If an employer is specifically opposed to legally-carried concealed handguns, there are provisions in the law that allow them to keep law-abiding people from carrying on their property. I'm certainly not going to jeopardize my ability to go armed at work because I want to spread awareness by openly carrying. The fact that I carry is my personal business. In contrast to the acceptance-happy utopia that many OC die-hards envision, most people don't understand why we carry, and find the idea that an unknown person next to them is carrying a gun frightening. Eliminating parts of the law that reinforce idiotic notions about folks who go armed will work towards a much smoother transition to open carry than simply shoving for legal OC. If the law reinforces the idea that a CHL is unable to control himself at a bar, a sporting event, the voting booth, or a university, what kind of notions is the public going to have about folks who openly carry, especially if it is unlicensed? First eliminating the official bias against us in the law would make a much smoother transition to OC in the future.

Skiprr wrote: I think the big thing anyone switching to open carry will have to take into account is, as bigolbigun mentioned, getting a holster that offers a retention mechanism. I don't know whether simple Level I retention would be enough. Most police departments I'm familiar with require a Level II, and I'd think that would make the most sense for open carry. (If OC does eventually pass, it will be interesting to see if the law mandates holsters that meet a minimum retention level, and if so I wouldn't be surprised to see that baseline set at least at Level II, if not Level III.)

If other States that have open carry do not require it, what is so different about Texas that would make it seem necessary?

I am not saying that a retention holster is a bad idea, but I think it should remain each person's choice. The police have retention holsters for very specific reasons, those reasons are directly connected to the job they do.

flintknapper wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:Well, since my most comfortable holsters are IWB, I'd just have to start wearing a belt and holster without pants.

You'd probably never get a second look in San Francisco, but in Texas....I'd probably stick with the pants.

You ever been to Austin...


In memory of our good friend Frankie, I would take a memorial day of OC'ing in a Metropolitan area, whilst avoiding the all to imposing "gun snatch," again whilst dodging the "first victim shot" shooters, and lastly but not leastly, whilst being harassed by the local municipality merely responding to a "man with gun" call.
Texas and Rhode Island were both better for having you lived there.....

About the only thing I think I might change, would be to go with an OWB instead of IWB holster, and I'd be less concerned with whether or not someone accidentally saw my gun. Other than that, I would still conceal it.

DoubleJ wrote:

bigolbigun wrote:The debate is long on this topic,but for the sake of this thread lets say open carry passes in some form or another. Now what do you do?

I'd start a thread about Open Carry and hope and pray it goes 9 pages...

I think I will thanks for the idea.

DoubleJ wrote:You ever been to Austin...

Actually yes, full time 1968-1985. Visit at least 3 times a year now ..and most of my family still lives there.

In memory of our good friend Frankie, I would take a memorial day of OC'ing in a Metropolitan area, whilst avoiding the all to imposing "gun snatch," again whilst dodging the "first victim shot" shooters, and lastly but not leastly, whilst being harassed by the local municipality merely responding to a "man with gun" call.

You remember the debate well Sir.

I won't change a thing. I do not like retention holsters and I would not be comfortable open carrying without one.

Skiprr wrote:I think the big thing anyone switching to open carry will have to take into account is, as bigolbigun mentioned, getting a holster that offers a retention mechanism. I don't know whether simple Level I retention would be enough. Most police departments I'm familiar with require a Level II, and I'd think that would make the most sense for open carry. (If OC does eventually pass, it will be interesting to see if the law mandates holsters that meet a minimum retention level, and if so I wouldn't be surprised to see that baseline set at least at Level II, if not Level III.)

The departments might require Level II, but the law does not. Since there is no scientific standard for retention levels, the law could never mandate such a thing, nor should it.

The issue of snatching always seems to be about ordinary citizens versus uniformed police. But what about security guards? How many of them have their pistols snatched? They don't require formal retention training to be licensed, and their equipment standards are, shall we say, somewhat lax. It's rare to see security wearing anything other than a generic nylon holster with a velcro strap (usually not even a thumb break, just a strap).

Snatching is not a problem anywhere else, so again: why does everyone think Texans are so incompetent and untrustworthy?

AEA wrote:I don't think so Liberty.........

The gun in your car is a different law altogether than CHL or OC.

A gun in car is now covered under under CHL, the Motorist protection act doesn't preclude me in from carrying it under my CHL. If The Open carry lawsgoes into into effect I guess we would have to see how it was written, but If it doesn't help with car carry then I guess I wouldn't benefit much from legalized open carry. My concealment in my car carry is a simple piece of paper anyway. Its not a big deal to me.